IBM exec offers to save $900 billion in health care costs, but Obama turned him down

By Barbara Hollingsworth

02/02/11

The CEO of IBM offered the Obama administration a free software program that would have cut Medicare and Medicaid fraud by almost a trillion dollars, but he was turned down – twice.

"We could have improved the quality and reduced the cost of the healthcare system by $900 billion...I said we would do it for free to prove that it works. They turned us down, "IBM chairman and CEO Samuel Palmisano said during a Sept. 14, 2010 taping of the Wall Street Journal’s Viewpoints program.

FOX News confirmed that a second meeting between Palmisano and Obama administration officials yielded the same result: "No thanks!" – even though the proffered "fix" would have eliminated 90 percent of the nation’s health care deficit – and cost taxpayers nothing if it didn’t perform as guaranteed.

Yet Medicare/Medicaid fraud is still rampant. According to the Manhattan Institute’s Steven Malanga,"abuses of Medicaid (alone) eat up at least 10 percent of the program’s total cost nationwide -- a waste of $30 billion a year. Unscrupulous doctors billing for over 24 hours per day of procedures, phony companies invoicing for phantom services, pharmacists filling prescriptions for dead patients, home health-care companies demanding payment for treating clients actually in the hospital -- on and on the rip-offs go."

Now that Republicans are trying to repeal Obamacare and drastically cut federal spending at the same time, perhaps Palmisano can be persuaded to offer his services again.

Congratulations to the FBI for their “take-down” of a $100M Medicare fraud ring on October 13,2010. According to the NY Times October 14 morning addition, the “band of Armenian-American gangsters” billed Medicare for more than “$100M by inventing 118 bogus health clinics in 25 states”. According to the paper, the gangsters made off with $35M in cash that cannot be recovered. You will find a link to the NY Times news story at the end of this blog.

How did this happen? It happened because Medicare is a wholly automated payment system that is notoriously porous. If the SSN number of both patient and doctor are validated electronically, and the treatment code is separately validated electronically, an electronic payment is generated. Only after the payment is any audit performed. Often, but not always, the audit happens only when a recipient reviewing their own Medicare statement reports activity they know to be fraudulent, according to the CBS 60 Minutes exposé filmed in Florida, earlier this year, I suppose that Medicare subscriber doctors, also, report fraud when the IRS accuses them of under reporting their income?

The 2010 Health Care Reform legislation did include funding for Medicare fraud detection. But focusing on investigation after the fraud occurs and on TV warnings to Medicare recipients urging them to “guard the card” will not solve a problem estimated to be at least $50B – billion with a B – dollars a year! In fact, the legislation expects these efforts to save only $2B a year – 4% of the estimated reduction in benefit payments mandated by the Act. Wow we need to do 96% better or cut seniors’ benefits, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates!

Last week Fox Business News reported, and an IBM spokesman confirmed, that Sam Palmisano, CEO of IBM, told Barack Obama that IBM had carefully studied the Medicare fraud issue and estimated the actual 10 year problem to be closer to $900B – that’s billion with a B — over ten years. Mr. Palmisano believes so strongly in both IBM’s numbers and IBM’s potential solution that he offered to “build” the solution for “free”. Fox reported that Barack Obama turned down this offer. Can you imagine, an American CEO of an American corporation offers a solution that could, potentially, save 90% of the projected health care reform deficit and the President of the United States turned down the offer?

I was astounded – so astounded that I knew I needed to verify the story before I gave full vent to my frustration. So I Googled “IBM Medicare fraud”. Turns out that it’s true! IBM confirmed it.

There is no mystery here. Health care is a great business opportunity for IBM. IBM Health Care Practice works with partners every day in both the United States and Europe to improve the use of technology to simultaneously reduce the cost of delivering health care and improve health care outcomes.

It is important to examine my Palmisano’s language carefully. He offered to “build” the solution for free to “prove” it worked. He never said, IBM didn’t want to be paid if it worked. He was willing to “share the risk”. That has been a standard practice in business for years! Time that we adopted these money saving practices in the government as well.

Why would the President turn down such an offer? Certainly he knows that all major technology initiatives in federal government are done by private contract vendors? So what’s up?

1. Most benignly, he does not want to appear to promote one federal vendor over others? That can easily be dealt with in the contracting process – requiring IBM to partner with other major software and hardware vendors to develop an “open source” solution.

2. Can it be the President, who has no business experience, does not understand the concept “investing in a new business opportunity”? Mr. Palmisano is not an altruist. Successfully ending Medicare fraud would further strengthen IBM’s “qualifications” as a global health care solutions provider. This would be worth billions in new profits to IBM and its partners.

3. Can it be possible that the President really has such a deep-seated distrust of business and business executives that he cannot imagine a CEO can be a patriot at the same time that he is responsible for producing share holder value?

4. Could the President fear that accepting this offer might be seen as a public rebuke of the team at Medicare, who are all SEIU or AFGE members? Could he be concerned that such a perception would have political ramifications as he looks to government union support in his 2012 Presidential election?

Based on CBS and the New York Times reporting, I can think of a half dozen “quick hit” changes to the existing Medicare payment process that would produce billions in potential Medicare fraud savings. So, its easy for me to believe that the full force of IBM, IBM partners, the Medicare staff, and the FBI could eliminate $900B in Medicare fraud over the next decade.

Personally, I believe that Mr. Palmisano is acting both as a patriot and a good CEO. Mr. Obama, what do you have to lose?

I was asked to research the validity of this e-mail by a relative, so I figured I'd share what I had found out here as I didn't see this topic covered on Snopes:

Original E-mail:

You can go to the two links below for additional information confirming this article and ou can Google article this and see lots of articles written about this too.
Obama is a Marxist, believes in class division, and as aMarxist is an anti-capitalist. When people say, “I don’t understand why he does what he does”, it’s because they have not grasped the fact that he is a Marxist. If they would take the time to connect the dots, look at what he did before he was appointed to the Illinois House of Representatives (a community orgranizer), look at who he associated with for friends, mentors, etc, and will not provide any information on his background education, birth, etc…..and that he himself has been quoted that he believes America needs reforming and change…. It becomes clear that he is anti-American as well as anti-capitalist. He is about destroying the American way of life. He should be impeached and removed from office and then brought up on crimes for treason. He does not believe in following the law or Constitutional law. Clearly that is evident. What does it take to get the message out that this man and his administration and the Democrat party are dead set on destroying America?

IBM offered to help reduce Medicare fraud for free...
What if I told you that the Chairman and CEO of IBM, Samuel J. Palmisano, approached President Obama and members of his administration before the healthcare bill debates with a plan that would reduce healthcare expenditures by $900 billion? Given the Obama Administration's adamancy that the United States of America simply had to make healthcare (read: health insurance) affordable for even the most dedicated welfare recipient, one would think he would have leaned forward in his chair, cupped his ear and said, "Tell me more!"
And what if I told you that the cost to the federal government for this program was nothing, zip, nada, zilch?
And, what if I told you that, in the end and after two meetings, President Obama and his team, instead of embracing a program that was proven to save money and one that was projected to save almost one trillion dollars - a private sector program costing the taxpayers nothing, zip, nada, zilch - said, "Thanks but no thanks" and then embarked on passing one of the most despised pieces of legislation in US history?
Well, it's all true.
Samuel J. Palmisano, the Chairman of the Board and CEO for IBM, said in a recent Wall Street Journal interview that he offered to provide the Obama Administration with a program that would curb healthcare claims fraud and abuse by almost one trillion dollars but the Obama White House turned the offer down.
Mr. Palmisano is quoted as saying during a taping of The Wall Street Journal's Viewpoints program on September 14, 2010:
"We could have improved the quality and reduced the cost of the healthcare system by $900 billion...I said we would do it for free to prove that it works. They turned us down."
A second meeting between Mr. Palmisano and the Obama Administration took place two weeks later, with no change in the Obama Administration's stance. A call placed to IBM on October 8, 2010, by FOX News confirmed, via a spokesperson, that Mr. Palmisano stands by his statement.
Speaking with FOX News' Stuart Varney, Mort Zuckerman, Editor-in-Chief of US News & World Report, said :
"It's a little bit puzzling because I think there is a huge amount of both fraud and inefficiency that American business is a lot more comfortable with and more effective in trying to reduce. And this is certainly true because the IBM people have studied this very carefully. And when Palmisano went to the White House and made that proposal, it was based upon a lot of work and it was not accepted. And it's really puzzling...These are very, very responsible people and don't have a political ax to grind.
In Mr. Obama's shunning of a private sector program that would have saved our country almost $1 trillion in healthcare expenditures, presented to him as he declared a "crisis in healthcare," he proves two things beyond any doubt: that he is anti-Capitalist and anti-private sector in nature and that he can no longer be trusted to tell the truth in both his political declarations or espoused goals.
For more info. check these links: http://capitolhillcoffeehouse.com/index.php/article/574http://reimagineamerica.org/tag/sam-palmisano/

My response:

After investigating this e-mail, this is not true. It does contain certain elements that are true (which are outlined below), but the overall message of the e-mail is completely false. The newspaper article they mention does not exist, and the quote that they use from the Viewpoint article is outrageously misquoted. The first half of the quote (before the "...") is not even referring to the same topic as the second half of the quote, and in fact, there's almost a minute of the interview missing between those two halves of the quote! And as for Fox News, if you watch the video on their own news site: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-w...lth-care-abuse - the video is at the top, above the transcript - they sliced the video taking out almost a minute of the interview to make the quote say what they wanted it to. Very scary that they are slicing and dicing people's words to make them say something completely different than what was actually said and are trying to pass it off as news.

Additionally, a search of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) turned up zero articles on medicare fraud and IBM. A search of WSJ on "Palmisano" (the person who was supposedly interviewed by WSJ) also turned up zero results on the medicare fraud proposal. I did watch the Palmisano interview on Sept 14, 2010 on WSJ's Viewpoint program. You can watch the interview online here:http://online.wsj.com/ad/article/vie...palmisano.html
During the interview, Palmisano does talk about being part of an investigative group at the Whitehouse, but his proposal to save 900 Billion dollars was on the healthcare system, not medicare fraud, and part of his plan was to allow anyone to get health insurance, including "illegal aliens, dogs, cats, ponies, whatever you want" (direct quote - occurs at 9:15 in the interview) and required that the government control health care purchases (saving money through collective buying). The program was also not free, he said it would be "self-funded". He did say (at 10:14 in the interview) that there is 200 billion in fraud in the health insurance system, not in medicare, and he did say they would do it for free to prove that it works, but here's what else you should know about what he did and did not say in this interview:

- All he said about his plan is that he would prove it worked for free. He didn't say it would solve the fraud problem. In fact, he never even said it would help the fraud problem. All he said was that there was 200 billion in fraud, and that he would do it for free to show that it worked. He never said what he would do nor how much it would help. Perhaps it would only decrease it down to $150 billion in fraud but would cost $60 billion to implement (yes, there are costs to implement a "free" software solution)? We have no idea what the outcome of this plan would be.

- A fraud system for health insurance would need to affect private companies and the data of private companies. Even if IBM offered up their part of the solution for free, the big picture of the solution would not be free as the private insurance companies would need to implement the technology which means hiring staff to maintain it, hardware (computers and servers) to run it, security audits to make sure the data is safe, training for staff on how to use it, etc. None of these are inexpensive.

- This would mean that the government would be forcing private companies to use a third-party product from a specific private company on their systems and bear the costs for doing so. Do you really want the government to force your business to buy and use a specific product from another company that you may or may not want to do business with?

- The money saved from the fraud would belong to private insurance companies, not to the government, so after all is said and done, the government would be forcing private high-earning companies to earn more money, and there's no guarantee that they would pass those savings on to the consumers.

- He said they would "do it for free to prove that it works (direct quote - 10:07 in the video). This does not mean that it would always be free. He said that he would prove it would work for free. He's not saying what the long term costs would be. Yearly licensing fees for the software? Upgrade costs? Maintenance costs? Costs to develop patches and security fixes? The costs to update the software every time the insurance/policy rules change? And who would be responsible for paying for this? The government? Or does the government force the private insurance companies to now pay all the costs for IBM's solution? Which means that those costs would ultimately be paid by all of us since the insurance companies would pass those costs on down to us.

- We don't know any other details about his plan or what it would mean for our private data. What if it meant that all of our personal medical records needed to be turned over to IBM for evaluation? What if it required that our personal medical records be processed in an IBM facility in another country? Do you want your medical records stored in another country that may not follow the same privacy laws as our country? Was IBM willing to do it for free in exchange for a percentage return of the money saved by cutting down on fraud? These are the kinds of details which can make a big difference in long term costs.

- He said that there was a 3% improvement in fraud costs over last year (8% down to 5%), so perhaps there is already a solution in place that is solving the fraud issue at an equivalent or better rate.

- Additionally, my father brought up the good point that most medical records are not electronic, making a software fraud-detection system less effective. (Only 17% of doctors are using electronic medical records according to a 2008 article: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Preside...6606536&page=2)

I was asked to research the validity of this e-mail by a relative, so I figured I'd share what I had found out here as I didn't see this topic covered on Snopes:

Original E-mail:

You can go to the two links below for additional information confirming this article and ou can Google article this and see lots of articles written about this too.
Obama is a Marxist, believes in class division, and as aMarxist is an anti-capitalist. When people say, “I don’t understand why he does what he does”, it’s because they have not grasped the fact that he is a Marxist. If they would take the time to connect the dots, look at what he did before he was appointed to the Illinois House of Representatives (a community orgranizer), look at who he associated with for friends, mentors, etc, and will not provide any information on his background education, birth, etc…..and that he himself has been quoted that he believes America needs reforming and change…. It becomes clear that he is anti-American as well as anti-capitalist. He is about destroying the American way of life. He should be impeached and removed from office and then brought up on crimes for treason. He does not believe in following the law or Constitutional law. Clearly that is evident. What does it take to get the message out that this man and his administration and the Democrat party are dead set on destroying America?

IBM offered to help reduce Medicare fraud for free...
What if I told you that the Chairman and CEO of IBM, Samuel J. Palmisano, approached President Obama and members of his administration before the healthcare bill debates with a plan that would reduce healthcare expenditures by $900 billion? Given the Obama Administration's adamancy that the United States of America simply had to make healthcare (read: health insurance) affordable for even the most dedicated welfare recipient, one would think he would have leaned forward in his chair, cupped his ear and said, "Tell me more!"
And what if I told you that the cost to the federal government for this program was nothing, zip, nada, zilch?
And, what if I told you that, in the end and after two meetings, President Obama and his team, instead of embracing a program that was proven to save money and one that was projected to save almost one trillion dollars - a private sector program costing the taxpayers nothing, zip, nada, zilch - said, "Thanks but no thanks" and then embarked on passing one of the most despised pieces of legislation in US history?
Well, it's all true.
Samuel J. Palmisano, the Chairman of the Board and CEO for IBM, said in a recent Wall Street Journal interview that he offered to provide the Obama Administration with a program that would curb healthcare claims fraud and abuse by almost one trillion dollars but the Obama White House turned the offer down.
Mr. Palmisano is quoted as saying during a taping of The Wall Street Journal's Viewpoints program on September 14, 2010:
"We could have improved the quality and reduced the cost of the healthcare system by $900 billion...I said we would do it for free to prove that it works. They turned us down."
A second meeting between Mr. Palmisano and the Obama Administration took place two weeks later, with no change in the Obama Administration's stance. A call placed to IBM on October 8, 2010, by FOX News confirmed, via a spokesperson, that Mr. Palmisano stands by his statement.
Speaking with FOX News' Stuart Varney, Mort Zuckerman, Editor-in-Chief of US News & World Report, said :
"It's a little bit puzzling because I think there is a huge amount of both fraud and inefficiency that American business is a lot more comfortable with and more effective in trying to reduce. And this is certainly true because the IBM people have studied this very carefully. And when Palmisano went to the White House and made that proposal, it was based upon a lot of work and it was not accepted. And it's really puzzling...These are very, very responsible people and don't have a political ax to grind.
In Mr. Obama's shunning of a private sector program that would have saved our country almost $1 trillion in healthcare expenditures, presented to him as he declared a "crisis in healthcare," he proves two things beyond any doubt: that he is anti-Capitalist and anti-private sector in nature and that he can no longer be trusted to tell the truth in both his political declarations or espoused goals.
For more info. check these links: http://capitolhillcoffeehouse.com/index.php/article/574http://reimagineamerica.org/tag/sam-palmisano/

My response:

After investigating this e-mail, this is not true. It does contain certain elements that are true (which are outlined below), but the overall message of the e-mail is completely false. The newspaper article they mention does not exist, and the quote that they use from the Viewpoint article is outrageously misquoted. The first half of the quote (before the "...") is not even referring to the same topic as the second half of the quote, and in fact, there's almost a minute of the interview missing between those two halves of the quote! And as for Fox News, if you watch the video on their own news site: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-w...lth-care-abuse - the video is at the top, above the transcript - they sliced the video taking out almost a minute of the interview to make the quote say what they wanted it to. Very scary that they are slicing and dicing people's words to make them say something completely different than what was actually said and are trying to pass it off as news.

Additionally, a search of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) turned up zero articles on medicare fraud and IBM. A search of WSJ on "Palmisano" (the person who was supposedly interviewed by WSJ) also turned up zero results on the medicare fraud proposal. I did watch the Palmisano interview on Sept 14, 2010 on WSJ's Viewpoint program. You can watch the interview online here:http://online.wsj.com/ad/article/vie...palmisano.html
During the interview, Palmisano does talk about being part of an investigative group at the Whitehouse, but his proposal to save 900 Billion dollars was on the healthcare system, not medicare fraud, and part of his plan was to allow anyone to get health insurance, including "illegal aliens, dogs, cats, ponies, whatever you want" (direct quote - occurs at 9:15 in the interview) and required that the government control health care purchases (saving money through collective buying). The program was also not free, he said it would be "self-funded". He did say (at 10:14 in the interview) that there is 200 billion in fraud in the health insurance system, not in medicare, and he did say they would do it for free to prove that it works, but here's what else you should know about what he did and did not say in this interview:

- All he said about his plan is that he would prove it worked for free. He didn't say it would solve the fraud problem. In fact, he never even said it would help the fraud problem. All he said was that there was 200 billion in fraud, and that he would do it for free to show that it worked. He never said what he would do nor how much it would help. Perhaps it would only decrease it down to $150 billion in fraud but would cost $60 billion to implement (yes, there are costs to implement a "free" software solution)? We have no idea what the outcome of this plan would be.

- A fraud system for health insurance would need to affect private companies and the data of private companies. Even if IBM offered up their part of the solution for free, the big picture of the solution would not be free as the private insurance companies would need to implement the technology which means hiring staff to maintain it, hardware (computers and servers) to run it, security audits to make sure the data is safe, training for staff on how to use it, etc. None of these are inexpensive.

- This would mean that the government would be forcing private companies to use a third-party product from a specific private company on their systems and bear the costs for doing so. Do you really want the government to force your business to buy and use a specific product from another company that you may or may not want to do business with?

- The money saved from the fraud would belong to private insurance companies, not to the government, so after all is said and done, the government would be forcing private high-earning companies to earn more money, and there's no guarantee that they would pass those savings on to the consumers.

- He said they would "do it for free to prove that it works (direct quote - 10:07 in the video). This does not mean that it would always be free. He said that he would prove it would work for free. He's not saying what the long term costs would be. Yearly licensing fees for the software? Upgrade costs? Maintenance costs? Costs to develop patches and security fixes? The costs to update the software every time the insurance/policy rules change? And who would be responsible for paying for this? The government? Or does the government force the private insurance companies to now pay all the costs for IBM's solution? Which means that those costs would ultimately be paid by all of us since the insurance companies would pass those costs on down to us.

- We don't know any other details about his plan or what it would mean for our private data. What if it meant that all of our personal medical records needed to be turned over to IBM for evaluation? What if it required that our personal medical records be processed in an IBM facility in another country? Do you want your medical records stored in another country that may not follow the same privacy laws as our country? Was IBM willing to do it for free in exchange for a percentage return of the money saved by cutting down on fraud? These are the kinds of details which can make a big difference in long term costs.

- He said that there was a 3% improvement in fraud costs over last year (8% down to 5%), so perhaps there is already a solution in place that is solving the fraud issue at an equivalent or better rate.

- Additionally, my father brought up the good point that most medical records are not electronic, making a software fraud-detection system less effective. (Only 17% of doctors are using electronic medical records according to a 2008 article: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Preside...6606536&page=2)

It is easy (tho costly) to reduce fraud. However is will always result in some legitimate claims being denied, delayed or only partially paid. Since some legitimate claims often have some of the "red flags" that fraud claims have, you will have to look at those and very likely deny some of those in order to get serious with fraud.

From looking over the Debt/Deficit commission stuff a little more closely, I'm convinced we need to start over by getting rid of all tax credits. I forget the exact numbers, but it was roughly that if you got rid of all tax credits (except child and Earned Income), you could go from 6 tax bracket to just 3 that would be 9%/14%/22% and have the same revenue. That is incredible. Tells you how much "special interests" and lobbyists have done to the system.

I think the commission accidently bought into the "Change" part of Obama as well and was actually looking to improve things. Little did they know they were just a PR program that he would sweep under the rug.

I think it was a way for the Republicans (Bob Dole) to show that Republicans wanted to give money to middle class families, etc. The EIC is also a load of crap, imo. I take whatever I can because the bastards set up their own system, but getting rid of all tax credits would be the first start, in my book. The article shows that without the child credit and EIC, each of the 3 brackets would go down 1%.

Lemmy was right. In the system that is set up, only suckers end up paying taxes. I've avoided them for a very long time.

I'm experiencing my first real disappointment in my own personal health care company....tho it is more to do with "the system" then the particular company I have.

Long story, but basically....my daughter (now 17) has an ongoing illness that is pretty controllable thru medication. However, she has "episodes" now and again. The Dr. she has been going to since 15 no longer takes our insurance, and we have been looking for a new one, but since she hasn't had a problem....but now she has an issue and can't find a Dr. to see her at all. Some don't take our insurance, some only see kids but don't want to take her since she will be 18 in Nov. Some only see adults but won't see her since she won't be 18 till Nov.

Wife finally frustrated called our insurance company and they told her to take daughter to the ER! Where if they say she needs to see a particular specialist they will bring them (the Dr.) to the ER and it will be covered! They are sitting in the ER now...so odd....

We talk about waste like it's a bad thing. That money goes somewhere. Usually to rich people, which creates jobs.

notsureifserious.jpg

If the CEO actually has a solution for our problem, and if it's such an important problem in dire need of fixing, and if he's going to give it away for free, why not tell us what his plan is. Of course, that could only happen if there actually was a plan, other than "people who can't afford insurance should just fucking die already"

Thanks...wife just called. It appears to be "semi" serious. But get this; she needs some immediate attention. And yes, she needs to see a specialist. But the hospital she is at "can't" do it. But since she needs IV's and fluids and such, they won't let my wife drive her to the other hospital. They are now going to take her by ambulance to the children's hospital where she will be checked in.

She will be fine. I'm working out of town, so stressful. But not entirely unexpected.

Thanks...wife just called. It appears to be "semi" serious. But get this; she needs some immediate attention. And yes, she needs to see a specialist. But the hospital she is at "can't" do it. But since she needs IV's and fluids and such, they won't let my wife drive her to the other hospital. They are now going to take her by ambulance to the children's hospital where she will be checked in.

She will be fine. I'm working out of town, so stressful. But not entirely unexpected.

Hope it all works out for your family.

I've always been sort of lucky when it came to insurance but I know I'm not in the majority. I worked with health benefits on the corporate side and it was sort of tough sometimes having to explain to people why their employer dropped their insurance. I'm in college now to study Health Services so I can be in a position where I can help people with their health care needs.

Thanks...wife just called. It appears to be "semi" serious. But get this; she needs some immediate attention. And yes, she needs to see a specialist. But the hospital she is at "can't" do it. But since she needs IV's and fluids and such, they won't let my wife drive her to the other hospital. They are now going to take her by ambulance to the children's hospital where she will be checked in.

She will be fine. I'm working out of town, so stressful. But not entirely unexpected.

[CRM]Just another example of why we need single payer[/CRM]
On a serious note, I hope your daughter is OK. This actually is a good example of one of the problems that can arise with 3rd party payments for medical services.

Well I see it as insurance being the least of our problems with health care.

I told wife to not worry about insurance for a single visit. Just pay cash so they can adjust her meds as needed. But even with cash we couldn't get in to see ANYONE. It was she is to young, or to old, or we are not taking new patients, or as a new patient you need a full check up first and our first appointment for those is 3 months out, etc, etc....but then even after they got to the ER to move her by ambulance is just silly and wasteful. I don't care that my insurance is paying for it. Which likely the only reason they did it, since insurance is paying for it.

Single payer would have only solved the problem of our original Dr. would still take us. But unlike a single payer, if I wasn't happy with my coverage, I'd just change. Meaning if we can't find a Dr. we like that takes our current insurance, I'll find the Dr., and change insurance. However, that isn't really the issue. The issue is seems to be her age. Some only take kids and some only take adults. And since she is almost 18, the one's that take adults want to wait till she is 18.

I'm actually pleased with my health insurance company. They were the once's that told me to go to the ER. And from there all is covered. But it shouldn't have had to come to that....

I'm experiencing my first real disappointment in my own personal health care company....tho it is more to do with "the system" then the particular company I have.

Long story, but basically....my daughter (now 17) has an ongoing illness that is pretty controllable thru medication. However, she has "episodes" now and again. The Dr. she has been going to since 15 no longer takes our insurance, and we have been looking for a new one, but since she hasn't had a problem....but now she has an issue and can't find a Dr. to see her at all. Some don't take our insurance, some only see kids but don't want to take her since she will be 18 in Nov. Some only see adults but won't see her since she won't be 18 till Nov.

Wife finally frustrated called our insurance company and they told her to take daughter to the ER! Where if they say she needs to see a particular specialist they will bring them (the Dr.) to the ER and it will be covered! They are sitting in the ER now...so odd....

First, I hope your daughter is doing OK.

But how is this "the system?" Sounds like its your insurance company and worse, your employer's choice of insurance providers.

Well I see it as insurance being the least of our problems with health care.

I told wife to not worry about insurance for a single visit. Just pay cash so they can adjust her meds as needed. But even with cash we couldn't get in to see ANYONE. It was she is to young, or to old, or we are not taking new patients, or as a new patient you need a full check up first and our first appointment for those is 3 months out, etc, etc....but then even after they got to the ER to move her by ambulance is just silly and wasteful. I don't care that my insurance is paying for it. Which likely the only reason they did it, since insurance is paying for it.

Single payer would have only solved the problem of our original Dr. would still take us. But unlike a single payer, if I wasn't happy with my coverage, I'd just change. Meaning if we can't find a Dr. we like that takes our current insurance, I'll find the Dr., and change insurance. However, that isn't really the issue. The issue is seems to be her age. Some only take kids and some only take adults. And since she is almost 18, the one's that take adults want to wait till she is 18.

I'm actually pleased with my health insurance company. They were the once's that told me to go to the ER. And from there all is covered. But it shouldn't have had to come to that....

PALO ALTO, California — President Barack Obama said Wednesday that congressional Republicans are pushing a radical plan to trim Medicare and Medicaid, ramping up the rhetoric as he and Congress approach crucial decisions on spending and the nation's debt.

"I think it's fair to say that their vision is radical," Obama told a town hall gathering at the headquarters of Facebook, the huge social network company.

"I don't think it's particularly courageous," he said of the GOP plan to convert Medicare to a voucher program and make big cuts to the federal-state Medicaid program for the poor.

"Nothing is easier than solving a problem on the backs of people who are poor, or people who are powerless, or don't have lobbyists, or don't have clout," Obama said.

Other Democrats have called the GOP plan radical, but the president generally has used less pungent language. Even as he sharply criticized the Republicans' spending proposals Wednesday, he said he believes the two parties can reach an accord on long-range plans to cut deficits by about $4 trillion over the next decade.

Obama made the comments in a friendly environment — one with 19 million friends, in fact. He told Facebook employees and others watching online the nation must invest vigorously in education, clean energy and research that are vital to future jobs and a strong economy.

Making the case for his own deficit-cutting plans, Obama said that one way to trim health care costs could involve doctors sharing medical information on Facebook, the hugely successful social network.

Obama's 2008 campaign used Facebook and other social networks to reach voters, volunteers and donors, especially among young adults. Such outlets will play even bigger roles in next year's campaigns.

The president shared the stage with Facebook's youthful founder, Mark Zuckerberg, whose company noted that 19 million network users have electronically "liked" Obama's White House Facebook site.

Obama, beginning a three-day Western tour pitching his budget plans and raising re-election cash, said trimming $4 trillion from the nation's deficits over the next 12 years sounds like a lot but can be done.

He will hold another session Thursday in Reno, Nev., with his message that his approach to cutting deficits is more balanced and less painful than a rival House Republican plan.

The president has proposed cutting spending, raising taxes and squeezing federal health care programs. The Republican plan rules out tax cuts and would achieve nearly $6 trillion in savings from spending cuts and overhauling Medicare and Medicaid.